NY case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers (SWAT, you perv)

Associated Press ^ | April 24, 2011 | CAROLYN THOMPSON

[decimon]

BUFFALO, N.Y. – Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.

That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.

"We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night," the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, "Doldrum."

"No, I didn't," he insisted. "Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."

"You're a creep ... just admit it," they said.

Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.

[RobRoy]

>>A few days ago I noticed a white SUV on the street which would change positions every few minutes, up the street, down the street, one side, then the other. The dark glass on the vehicle didn’t allow anyone to see the driver. There were no markings indicating a commercial vehicle. It finally hit me that it was likely someone positioning himself for the best reception from a wireless router. Not sure, but a good bet. Why the guy didn’t park near a coffee shop or hotel, I don’t know. Maybe because of restrictions?<<

Maybe government with purposes other than trying to get free wi-fi.

On a side note, a few years ago my wife needed to check email before we had comcast hooked up at our new home there. She drove around and found a signal pretty fast and parked the car and logged in. After about 10 minutes a lady came out of the house and asked if she could help my wife. My wife told her she was just using their wi-fi to check her email.

I’ll be the lady’s hubby locked it down that night. :P

[Secret Agent Man]

I am sure her neighbors mooching off her agree. Only she is required to pay the bill.

Perhaps her husband pays the bill.

[for-q-clinton]

Finally, the police could have easily checked for an open router before turning SWAT loose. It is called due diligence, and should be expected from professionals.

I concur. While this is a terrible crime and those found guilty should face maximum punishment--it's not a crime where a child was locked up in the person's basement and needed to rescued. They clearly had time to properly check for open wifi and if there were any "piggy-backers" while the file was being dowloaded.

Good thing this homeowner didn't think it was crooks breaking in and shoot at the cops...he would have ended up dead. Cops need to be completley thorough before invading a house with guns.

I know if I head someone stirring in my house and I was upstairs I'd have my shotgun pointing down the steps to protect my family. First guy I see with a gun would get blasted and in this case I'd end up dead as I'm sure the cops would return fire.

[bornred]

Do you remember the days when people parked their cars in the driveway with the keys in the ignition?

We’re becoming a low trust society; this is just another manifestation of it.

[OldDeckHand]

"I used that term in the title. Whether or not my usage is precisely correct is irrelevant."

I see, so there's just as much evidence that it was a "SWAT" team as there is that it was Superheroes from the Justice League of America - none.

[tacticalogic]

Where does it say SWAT was used?

It doesn't say so explicity. It does say they broke down his door in the early morning hours, entered enmasse and immediatly put everyone in the house on the floor and held at gunpoint, using assault weapons.

Is that a normal weapons and tactics scenario?

[RobRoy]

>>So, you’re saying that it was someone else’s internet connection that was used?<<

By the perp, yep. And that “someone else” was the guy that got the swat team visit.

From the article:
Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn’t him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.

[sourcery]

“Congress shall make no law” is an absolute prohibition that forbids exceptons for any reason. Even if not, Congress is not granted any authority to regulate speech, let alone criminalize it:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84

[for-q-clinton]

I swear I don’t know why some ignore all logic when defending the police.

[RobRoy]

>>This was an innocent guy. I don’t understand how “probably cause” gives LEOs the right to take away someone’s rights.<<

Swat teams. Use ‘em or lose ‘em.

[SIDENET]

Please, when you're through wallowing in your pool of self-imagined melodrama, point out for me in the story where the word "SWAT" is used.

Don't thank me.

Something tells me you'd be whistling a different tune if this had happened to you.

[OldDeckHand]

"If the evidence was so damn solid, why is the guy proved to be innocent?"

Proved to be innocent? Where does it say this guy was prosecuted or even arrested for anything?

The feds, while conducting an investigation into the distribution and receipt of child pornography, served a lawfully obtained search warrant and effected a search of the man's home based on information that it turns out is later proven to be 100% accurate - The man owned the internet connection that was used to download child pornography.

I don't know how much simpler it can be. You're either being argumentative or obtuse, I really don't care which it is.

[Doe Eyes]

Please, when you're through wallowing in your pool of self-imagined melodrama, point out for me in the story where the word "SWAT" is used.

Its right there in the headline.

[OldDeckHand]

Oh noes, they pointed a mean gun at someone. The horror.

"Is that a normal weapons and tactics scenario?"

For serving a felony search warrant? Yep.

[RobRoy]

>>Do you shoplift to save money on groceries and clothes too?<<

There really is a lot of judgmental idiocy on FR these days.

I actually have to click on an “accept terms and conditions” page before I access. What I am doing is completely permissible. I am not stealing anything.

Like the cops in the OP story, you may want to get your facts straight before coming in with both barrels.

[OldDeckHand]

You mean the headline that a FReeper wrote, that headline?

Just checking?

The word "SWAT" doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the AP headline or story. It's entirely a figment of the poster's imagination.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I'm surprised you don't write professional for the daytime soaps. You certainly have the right flair for the dramatic.

Yeah riiiiight, planted evidence NEVER happens...nooooooosiiirrrreeee.

If it wasn't his internet connection that was used, then whose was it and why did his attorney not say that it wasn't even his internet connection that was used?

What it shows is that because your connection is used it does not automatically make you guilty of what is downloaded, as this case so clearly proves.

The cops know that, that is why the guy should have been questioned and not treated as a serf by the rising brown shirt NAZI crowd.

But then they wouldn't have been able to justify their budgets and have some fun abusing and desensitizing fellow Citizens.

I mean c'mon, what fun is that, right?

[OldDeckHand]

I’m sorry, does that mean that you didn’t find the word “SWAT” in the story?

[RobRoy]

>>Testing with the laptop in the car with hand holding the antenna I could get into my router from over a mile away.<<

Wow! Apply that to my “nefarious guy” scenario in post #39. A REALLY bad guy should NEVER get caught doing this stuff if he has a basic understanding of the technology.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I swear I don’t know why some ignore all logic when defending the police.

Ditto!